Download
1 / 44
440 likes | 456 Views
LOGIC. A good argument should do the following: 1. cite valid authorities 2. use vivid analogies 3. present options 4. ask rhetorical questions 5. acknowledge and deal with opposition 6. appeal to emotions 7. use sound reasoning 8. explain causes and effects
E N D
A good argument should do the following: 1. cite valid authorities 2. use vivid analogies 3. present options 4. ask rhetorical questions 5. acknowledge and deal with opposition 6. appeal to emotions 7. use sound reasoning 8. explain causes and effects 9. use language effectively and persuasively
DEFINITIONS • Logos: The Greek word logos is the basis for the English word “logic.” Everyday arguments rely heavily on ethos and pathos, but academic arguments rely more on logos. Yes, these arguments will try to touch the audience’s emotions, but there will be logical chains of reasoning so support all claims.
Ethos: Ethos is related to the English word “ethics” and refers to the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective persuasive strategy because when we believe that the speaker is reliable and has our best interest in mind, we are more apt to listen to what he or she has to say.
Pathos: Pathos is related to the words “pathetic,” “sympathy,’ and “empathy.” Whenever you accept a claim based on how it makes you feel without fully analyzing the rationale behind the claim, you are acting on pathos. Pathos may include a range of emotions: love, fear, patriotism, guilt, hate, or joy. A majority of arguments in the popular press are heavily dependent on pathetic appeals.
How do you employ appeals in an argument? • Logos (to evoke a cognitive, rational response): use explanations, definitions, factual data and statistics, quotations, citations from experts and authorities, and informed opinions.
Ethos (to demonstrate author’s reliability and competence): use language appropriate to audience and subject; use retrained, sincere, fair-minded presentation; use correct grammar and appropriate level of vocabulary.
Pathos (to evoke an emotional response from the reader): use vivid, concrete language; use emotionally loaded language; use vivid descriptions; employ narrative and emotional anecdotes; use figurative analogies.
How to create a traditional argument: • Basic strategy: state the claim and give reasons to prove it; refute the opponent by showing what is wrong or invalid with other views. • Ethos: writer establishes own character by demonstrating competence, fair-mindedness, and good will. • Logos: Writer appeals to reason to establish a claim and refute opponent’s claim, • Pathos: Writer arouses emotions with evocative language to strengthen claim.
Goal of persuasive writing: • The writer seeks to change the opponent’s mind and thereby win the argument. In order to achieve this goal, the writer must be careful not to anger or offend the opponent.
Rogerian argument: • This is a kinder, gentler form of argument in which the writer analyzes the conditions under which the position of either side is valid; the writer uses descriptive, dispassionate language to cool emotions on both sides; the writer creates cooperation and the possibility that both sides might change and reach a mutually advantageous outcome. • This kind of argument is effective if the topic is particularly heated or controversial.
Logical Fallacies: • This is the fun part!! A fallacy is an error in reasoning. It can be used against you in an argument, but if you are familiar with them, you will be able to refute the fallacious argument. Likewise, if you are clever, you can use them to convince others. • Follow along with the class handout to identify the following common fallacies.
Ad hominem: • Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. This fallacy is sometimes called mudslinging.
Red Herring • This term derives from the Middle Ages. When medieval criminals attempted to outrun law officials, they might attempt various strategies to divert the law. Literally, they might use a red herring to throw search dogs of their scent. • In logic, a red herring brings in information that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. If indirectly inflammatory, it might be known as ‘guilt by association.’
Red Herring, continued • The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: • Topic A is under discussion. • Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). • Topic A is abandoned. • This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Special Pleading • When we begin to think of ourselves as special and therefore subject to a different standard than one we are inclined to apply to others, we fall victim to the fallacy of special pleading. • This form of argument can also take the form of tuquoque, or ‘you, too,’ in which the opponent draws attention away from the issue at hand by pointing the finger at someone else.
Appeal to Authority • While it is important to quote authorities when making an argument, the responsible writer will make sure the authority is valid. Appeals to authority become fallacious when the authority is questionable, vague, or erroneous. Don’t believe everything you read! For a student research paper, such sources as Wikipedia and many websites are, in fact, erroneous. Know how to spot signs of validity!
Mob Appeal • A persuasive device that attempts to make you feel as if you will be part of a special or popular group if you accept the argument (or buy the product) at hand.
Either/Or (Bifurcation) • This fallacy presumes that a certain distinction or classification is exhaustive and exclusive when other alternatives are possible.
Threat/ Veiled threat • One of many emotional appeals, a veiled threat uses the possibility of harm to advance one’s conclusion. It is an attempt to influence people by threatening them with unpleasant consequences of some kind if they do not agree. It is effective because by arousing sufficient fear, it is frequently possible to make them believe things they would reject as false in calm moments.
Appeal to Pity • This appeal is intended to win people over by playing on their emotions. It tries to shortcut our thinking by exploiting some single emotion, that of sympathy.
Card Stacking • This logical fallacy occurs when only the good points in an argument are presented. The hope is that the opponent will not question the evidence at hand or see any negative points in the argument (or product). Anyone who has ever bought a car from a dealership has been subject to this fallacy!!
Question Begging • If you watched the Casey Anthony trial, you witnessed Jose Baez successfully using this fallacy, asking George Anthony such questions as this: “You would never tell anyone that your granddaughter drowned, would you?” • To beg the question is to assume the point at issue. • We can beg the question with a single word—an epithet, as some writers call it, which condemns out—of-hand. • Question begging assumes guilt or disapproval without providing evidence that such an attitude is justified.
Question Begging, continued • Rather than simply providing us with the relevant facts and allowing us to be the judge for ourselves, the question beggar tries to shape our attitude through labels and assumptions. • When posed as a question, this fallacy is called a complex question. This occurs when a question is phrased so that it cannot be answered without granting a particular answer to some other question not at hand.
Circular Reasoning • The most elementary form of this fallacy is simply a form of repeating. The clever logician might eloquently phrase a sentence so that the subject and object actually repeat the same thought. The result is that the sentence, essentially, says nothing.
False Cause (non sequitor) • False cause refers to an argument that suggests events are causally connected when, in fact, no such causal connection has been established. The fallacy lies at the root of most superstitions (which are mixed-up notions of what causes what). • Another typical form of this fallacy assumes that, because two events occur at roughly the same time or one occurs immediately prior to the other, the one caused the other.
False Analogy • While an effective rhetorical device, all analogies, at some point, break down. • An analogy is a likeness between one thing and another (since A is like B in certain ways, then what is true of A must be true of B). • Whenever we make a comparison, we must be careful that the things being compared resemble each other in significant ways and differ in insignificant ways.
Hasty Generalization • This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient facts. • It can occur when a conclusion is not representative of the cases that would warrant it, when an insufficient number of cases is used to reach a conclusion, or when important contradictory evidence that might cast doubt on the conclusion is omitted or glossed over.
Irrelevant Thesis • In the case of irrelevant thesis, an attempt is made to prove a thesis or conclusion that is not the one at issue or, alternately, to refute a thesis different from the one at issue in the other person’s argument. • This fallacy is similar to the red herring, except that the irrelevant thesis is even further removed from the issue at hand.
Division • “What is true of the whole must be true of the parts.” • This is a fallacy because we cannot validly extend properties from wholes to parts or from groups to members, for a group or whole is something functional. To make such an inference is to neglect the element of structure that makes a whole other than the sum of its parts.
Composition • The fallacy of composition is the reverse of division: attempting to apply to the whole or group what is true only of the parts or members.
Slippery Slope • The Slippery Slope fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on an unlikely chain reaction stemming from the conclusion.
Equivocation • The Equivocation fallacy is used when the conclusion of the argument depends on a shift in the meaning of a word or phrase. In Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First?", the entire argument stems from the basis that all of the player's names on the baseball team are words that cause equivocation fallacies. For example, if Who is on first, and you want to know who is on first, there is going to be confusion.
Equivocation: Headliners • Marijuana Issue Sent to Joint Committee • British Left Waffles on Falkland Islands (but they took the pancakes) • Lung Cancer in Women Mushrooms (men mushrooms, however, not affected) • Eye Drops Off Shelf (must have been a glass eye) • Teacher Strikes Idle Kids (that will teach those kids to be idle!) • Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim (obviously revenge for “man bites dog”) • Lawyers Give Poor Free Legal Advice (you get what you pay for) • Man Eating Piranha Mistakenly Sold as Pet Fish (proving that you can have a pet human) • Miners Refuse to Work After Death (they spent their entires lives working, after all) • Lawmen from Mexico Barbecue Guests (but no one remembered the KC Masterpiece) • Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant (because rehabilitation didn’t work) • Stolen Painting Found By Tree (and tree demands reward) • Hitler, Nazi Papers Found in Attic (and you thought he died in his bunker)
All information from Dr. Jamison’s own notes and from S. Morris Engel’s Analyzing Informal Fallacies New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1980.
